Affirming.
This is the second appeal of this case. The former opinion is found in
The lower court was right in adjudging that the amended petition with the copy of the will cured the defect in the judgment, and with that defect cured the purchaser is shown to have taken a good title.
It is suggested that the will of Susan M. Wheat did not vest in Otha Wheat, Sr., a fee-simple title to her half-interest in the land. The provision of the will is as follows: "I will and bequeath to my beloved husband, Otha Wheat all of my property, real, personal and mixed of whatever kind of which I may die possessed, to his sole and separate use and enjoyment and to dispose of as may seem proper or pleasing to him."
This provision vested him with a fee-simple title.
It is suggested that the former opinion of this court held that the sale was void, and that it is the law of the case. The former opinion did not so hold except upon the record as presented. The record as presented showed that the heirs of Susan M. Wheat owned a one-half undivided interest in the land. They were not parties to the action, and any sale affecting their interest, if they had an interest, would have been void. But they did not have any interest as the title was in Otha Wheat, Sr., at the time of the sale.
Judgment affirmed.
